Items

• 

  The nitrogen gap in soil health concepts and fertility measurements

  Soil nitrogen (N) often limits productivity in agroecosystems, prompting fertilizer applications that increase crop yields but can degrade the environment. Nitrogen's dual role in both productivity and environmental quality should center it in soil health frameworks. We use recent evidence to argue that N availability is an emergent property of the integrated soil biogeochemical system and is strongly influenced by plant traits and their interactions with microbes and minerals. Building upon this, we theorize that the sources of plant and microbial N shift across soil health gradients, from inorganic N dependence in ecologically simple systems with poor soil health to a highly networked supply of organic N in healthy soils; ergo, investments in soil health should increase ecological complexity and the pathways by which plants can access N, leading to more resilient nutrient supplies and yields in a variable climate. However, current N assessment methods derive from a historical emphasis on inorganic N pool sizes and are unable to capture the shifting drivers of N availability across soil health gradients. We highlight the need to better understand the plant-microbial-mineral interactions that regulate bioavailable N as a first step to improving our ability to measure it. We conclude it will be necessary to harness agroecosystem complexity, account for plant and microbial drivers, and carefully integrate external N inputs into soils' internal N network to expand the routes by which N from organic pools can be made bioavailable. By emphasizing N in soil health concepts, we argue that researchers can accelerate advances in N use efficiency and resiliency.
• 

  Is it possible to attain the same soil organic matter content in arable agricultural soils as under natural vegetation?

  Clearing natural vegetation to establish arable agriculture (cropland) almost invariably causes a loss of soil organic carbon (SOC). Is it possible to restore soil that continues in arable agriculture to the pre-clearance SOC level through modified management practices? To address this question we reviewed evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, UK, Bad Lauchstädt, Germany, Sanborn Field, USA and Brazil and both experiments and surveys of farmers’ fields in Ethiopia, Australia, Zimbabwe, UK and Chile. In most cases SOC content in soil under arable cropping was in the range 38–67% of pre-clearance values. Returning crop residues, adding manures or including periods of pasture within arable rotations increased this, often to 60–70% of initial values. Under tropical climatic conditions SOC loss after clearance was particularly rapid, e.g. a loss of >50% in less than 10 years in smallholder farmers’ fields in Zimbabwe. If larger yielding crops were grown, using fertilizers, and maize stover returned instead of being grazed by cattle, the loss was reduced. An important exception to the general trend of SOC loss after clearance was clearing Cerrado vegetation on highly weathered acidic soils in Brazil and conversion to cropping with maize and soybean. Other exceptions were unrealistically large annual applications of manure and including long periods of pasture in a highly SOC-retentive volcanic soil. Also, introducing irrigated agriculture in a low rainfall region can increase SOC beyond the natural value due to increased plant biomass production. For reasons of sustainability and soil health it is important to maintain SOC as high as practically possible in arable soils, but we conclude that in the vast majority of situations it is unrealistic to expect to maintain pre-clearance values. To maintain global SOC stocks at we consider it is more important to reduce current rates of land clearance and sustainably produce necessary food on existing agricultural land.
• 

  Soil organic carbon is affected by organic amendments, conservation tillage, and cover cropping in organic farming systems: A meta-analysis

  Meta-analysis is often used to compare how soil health differs between organic and conventional farming systems. However, the burgeoning primary literature on organic farming now allows direct evaluation of the best management practices (BMPs) within organic farming systems on soil health improvements. Therefore, the main objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of BMPs, such as organic amendments, conservation tillage, and cover cropping, on soil health within organic farming systems. We focused on two principal soil health metrics: soil organic carbon (SOC) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) concentrations. On average, adoption of BMPs increased depth-weighted SOC and MBC concentrations by 18 and 30 %, respectively, relative to organically-managed control groups. Among BMPs, organic amendments and conservation tillage practices showed net positive effect on soil health with 24 and 14 % increase in depth-weighted SOC concentrations, respectively. Although cover cropping did not have an overall influence on SOC concentrations, we found a temporal trend such that cover cropping significantly increased SOC concentrations after 5 years of its adoption. This indicates that the soil health benefits from BMPs accrue over time and highlights the need of long-term adoptability of BMPs to achieve agricultural sustainability. Future primary articles that focus on under-researched cropping practices in organic systems (e.g., crop rotation length and diversity, biochar addition) and the additive effects of multiple BMPs on soil health, will add to the synthesizable evidence base. Therefore, this meta-analysis confirms the soil health benefits of adopting BMPs within organic farming systems, identifies critical knowledge gaps, and provides directions for future organic farming research.
• 

  A meta-analysis of global cropland soil carbon changes due to cover cropping

  Including cover crops within agricultural rotations may increase soil organic carbon (SOC). However, contradictory findings generated by on-site experiments make it necessary to perform a comprehensive assessment of interactions between cover crops, environmental and management factors, and changes in SOC. In this study, we collected data from studies that compared agricultural production with and without cover crops, and then analyzed those data using meta-analysis and regression. Our results showed that including cover crops into rotations significantly increased SOC, with an overall mean change of 15.5% (95% confidence interval of 13.8%–17.3%). Whereas medium-textured soils had highest SOC stocks (overall means of 39 Mg ha−1 with and 37 Mg ha−1 without cover crops), fine-textured soils showed the greatest increase in SOC after the inclusion of cover crops (mean change of 39.5%). Coarse-textured (11.4%) and medium-textured soils (10.3%) had comparatively smaller changes in SOC, while soils in temperate climates had greater changes (18.7%) than those in tropical climates (7.2%). Cover crop mixtures resulted in greater increases in SOC compared to mono-species cover crops, and using legumes caused greater SOC increases than grass species. Cover crop biomass positively affected SOC changes while carbon:nitrogen ratio of cover crop biomass was negatively correlated with SOC changes. Cover cropping was associated with significant SOC increases in shallow soils (≤30 cm), but not in subsurface soils (>30 cm). The regression analysis revealed that SOC changes from cover cropping correlated with improvements in soil quality, specifically decreased runoff and erosion and increased mineralizable carbon, mineralizable nitrogen, and soil nitrogen. Soil carbon change was also affected by annual temperature, number of years after start of cover crop usage, latitude, and initial SOC concentrations. Finally, the mean rate of carbon sequestration from cover cropping across all studies was 0.56 Mg ha−1 yr−1. If 15% of current global cropland were to adopt cover crops, this value would translate to 0.16 ± 0.06 Pg of carbon sequestered per year, which is ~1–2% of current fossil fuels emissions. Altogether, these results indicated that the inclusion of cover crops into agricultural rotations can enhance soil carbon concentrations, improve many soil quality parameters, and serve as a potential sink for atmosphere CO2.
• 

  Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective

  Agriculture is in crisis. Soil health is collapsing. Biodiversity faces the sixth mass extinction. Crop yields are plateauing. Against this crisis narrative swells a clarion call for Regenerative Agriculture. But what is Regenerative Agriculture, and why is it gaining such prominence? Which problems does it solve, and how? Here we address these questions from an agronomic perspective. The term Regenerative Agriculture has actually been in use for some time, but there has been a resurgence of interest over the past 5 years. It is supported from what are often considered opposite poles of the debate on agriculture and food. Regenerative Agriculture has been promoted strongly by civil society and NGOs as well as by many of the major multi-national food companies. Many practices promoted as regenerative, including crop residue retention, cover cropping and reduced tillage are central to the canon of ‘good agricultural practices’, while others are contested and at best niche (e.g. permaculture, holistic grazing). Worryingly, these practices are generally promoted with little regard to context. Practices most often encouraged (such as no tillage, no pesticides or no external nutrient inputs) are unlikely to lead to the benefits claimed in all places. We argue that the resurgence of interest in Regenerative Agriculture represents a re-framing of what have been considered to be two contrasting approaches to agricultural futures, namely agroecology and sustainable intensification, under the same banner. This is more likely to confuse than to clarify the public debate. More importantly, it draws attention away from more fundamental challenges. We conclude by providing guidance for research agronomists who want to engage with Regenerative Agriculture.